The trial Court must conduct a sufficient inquiry under Section 202 before summoning an accused for defamation, ensuring no abuse of process occurs.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Purnendu Chakraborty assisted by Shri Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore and Shri Sachin Upadhyay, learned counsels for the applicant, Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State as well as Shri Pramod Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant/ complainant and perused the record.

2. This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the applicant- Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh for quashing of the order dated 10.01.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III (MP/ MLA), Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 80654/ 2023 ( Dr. Mohd. Kamran Vs. Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh ), whereby the applicant has been summoned to face trial U/S 500 I.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court has passed the impugned order without application of mind and simply on the basis of recording of the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of his witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the applicant/ accused person has been summoned to face trial for committing offence under Section 500 I.P.C.

4. It is vehemently submitted that while summoning an accused person to face trial under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the trial Court was obliged to record sufficient grounds for proceeding further and the impugned order passed by the trial Court has been passed so carelessly that the trial Court has failed to record any reasons, which may even remotely describe the sufficiency of grounds.

5. It is further submitted the trial Court has also not considered the amended provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C. whereby it is obligatory on the part of the trial Court to either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by any other person for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient grounds for proceeding as the applicant/ accused was a resident of another district. Thus, the trial Court has failed in ascertaining the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the sufficiency of material which may warrant the summoning of the applicant for committing the offence under Section 500 I.P.C.

6. It is also submitted that letters, which are stated to have been written by the applicant are confidential documents and there is no iota of evidence or material which may even remotely suggest that it was the applicant who had leaked these papers in the media and there is also no material or evidence which may suggest that on the basis of these letters, the recognition of the newspaper of the complainant was cancelled.

7. While drawing the attention of this Court towards the two newspapers cuttings, which have been placed on record, it is submitted that two other defamation complaint cases were filed by the applicant and the summoning order